header-logo header-logo

06 October 2011 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7484 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Spare change?

Skimping on compensation will fuel an increase in litigation & costs says Richard Scorer

According to the BBC (16 September 2011), the government has cut the budget of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). The CICA is a taxpayer-funded scheme which awards compensation to victims of violent crime. It will have £10m less this year—a cut of 5%. While the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) maintains that the reduced funding will be sufficient, the victim’s organisation, Victim Support, argues that there is already a “financial time bomb” in the scheme.

Sensible policy?

Is cutting the CICA’s budget a sensible policy, even in narrow accountancy terms? Between 1964 and 1 April 1996 the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) awarded damages to victims of violent crime on the same basis as the civil courts. In 1995 the then home secretary, Michael Howard, deemed the CICB scheme too expensive and replaced it with the CICA scheme which came into effect on 1 April 1996.

The 1996 scheme was significantly less generous than the scheme it replaced. Whereas

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll